La vie comme préjudice : un regard comparé en common law nord-américaine (Wrongful Life: A Comparative View in North American Common Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La caracterisation d’une vie prejudiciable (« wrongful life ») constitue sans doute l’un des problemes les plus epineux de la bioethique contemporaine. En temoigne sa defaveur presque unanime dans les juridictions de tradition tant civiliste que de common law. Des 1963, la Cour d’appel de l’Illinois, statuant sur l’action d’un enfant reprochant a son propre pere biologique son statut d’enfant illegitime et adulterin, soulevait les preoccupations ayant trait aux consequences sociales imprevisibles qui decouleraient de la reconnaissance d’une vie prejudiciable, etant donne la multiplicite des circonstances entourant une naissance qui seraient susceptibles d’etre considerees comme prejudiciables. Quels sont les differents obstacles juridiques qui se dressent devant l’admissibilite des prejudices de vie en common law americaine et canadienne ? Dans quelle mesure certains ressorts americains (Californie, Etat de Washington, New Jersey, Etat du Maine et Rhode Island) sont-ils parvenus a les contourner, avec plus ou moins de succes ? Ce sera en puisant a meme certaines notions developpees par le courant dit des Disability Studies que les auteurs offriront certains elements d’un nouveau cadre, methodologique et conceptuel, permettant de reenvisager tant la notion de handicap, que le delit de vie prejudiciable. English Abstract: Wrongful life is probably one of the most difficult dilemmas arising in the field of contemporary bioethics, to such an extent that it is still met with almost unanimous disapproval in both civil and common law jurisdictions. As early as 1963 the Illinois Court of Appeal, having to decide on the first-ever wrongful life case brought by a minor child seeking damages from his father because of his illegitimacy, raised concerns about the unpredictable social consequences which would likely arise from recognizing such an action. What are the legal barriers to wrongful life actions as identified in American and Canadian case law? How do some US jurisdictions (California, Washington State, New Jersey, Maine and Rhode Island) go around them with more or less success? This article aims at mobilizing some of the tools developed by the Disability Studies in order to shed light and provide new methods of thinking and relating to disability, and to the tort of wrongful life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".